Elmer had it right, a heavy lead bullet driven as hard as it can be is a fight stopper. I don't believe that modern industry has improved on the 'Punkin Ball' as a life saver.

Soooo, I admit that in my shtf bag I have his 45 ACP load for my 1911. 7 grains of Unique driving a 250 grain lead SWC will do the job and when you fire it on the range will get every ones attention. I use new Starline brass. One of the 80's issues of Handloader has this load.

I tinkered with this years ago in my 1911. I tried the Sierra 240g JHC and a Lasercast 250 LRN and somewhere around 8.0g of AA#5. I ended up going back to the 230 JHP and 8.5g of AA#5 (These loads were within the charge weights published by Accurate at that time.) The 250g load was interesting to shoot but not nearly as interesting or as impressive as my .45 Colt revolver loads and I could get the 230g JHP in bulk just as easily and the price difference wasn't that great.

Back before there were any practical hollowpoints for the .45 and before I concluded that any handload in a defense gun is not the best idea I loaded the Speer 45 Colt LSWC (were they 250 or 255?) with something like 7.0 Unique. Obviously we both read the same article... and they were impressive, but when the first Hydra-shok .45s came along in the 80s I switched and continue to use them to this day.

I know and I read and respect Mas also. So I stoke my Colt with Taurus Hex and the new Corbon equiv. But I think the Keith load is still a manstopper and in a shtf situation I'll not hesitate to use it.

...when the first Hydra-shok .45s came along in the 80s I switched and continue to use them to this day.

I too have kept my home defense guns loaded with Hydrashoks from the day I bought a .45 and still do. The expansion to over eight tenths of an inch that Marshal and Sanow documented of a .45 ACP Hydrashok clinched it for me. Even though I have several boxes of the next generation Federal load (SXT?) I'll go with what I know works.

The only roles I can think of where a hard cast, FMJ or other solid is preferable to a JHP is when shooting steel plates to avoid getting splattered with jacket fragments and when you're loaded for bear where twelve to sixteen inches of penetration just isn't enough. All of the "Bear Loads" I saw offered for sale in when I was in Alaska were hard cast lead Keith style SWC.

I loaded some 250 grain bullets in the 45 ACP, close to the Keith level, and decided they were way to hot for my pre War M1917. And shot way the heck high.

My 45 ACP revolvers are all prewar pistols, they need .454" bullets to avoid leading. I tried 6.0 grs Unique, and 6.5 grains Unique. In the lightweight M1917 pistol I found the recoil excessive, especially with the 6.5 grain load. A pre WWII pistol is not as heavy or as stout as the 1990’s S&W’s, and I worried that too many of these loads would batter my pistols apart. Loads that are absolutely uncomfortable in my M1917 might not be as bad in a late model Smith. But I ain’t got one.

So here is the troll part, why do it? If you want to push a 250gr 45 caliber bullet 850 to 900 fps, why not get a nice 45 Long Colt? . Big bullet, low pressure, lots of momentum. Lots of happy customers since 1873.

So here is the troll part, why do it? If you want to push a 250gr 45 caliber bullet 850 to 900 fps, why not get a nice 45 Long Colt? . Big bullet, low pressure, lots of momentum. Lots of happy customers since 1873.

In a revolver, I agree--or better yet, a .44 Mag, which will shoot bucketsfull of these kinds of loads with complete safety.

Back when Fernando ran Triton, I kept hinting that that he needed to experiment with 250-260gr JHP in the .450 SMC. The Speer Gold Dot and Nosler Partition Gold in that weight range look like they'd have auto-friendly ogives. Of course, I'm the nut that once played with 300gr bullets in the .45 ACP. I gave up before I got anywhere close to making the then current Major Power Factor of 175. (At least I didn't play with factory length .40 S&W with 220gr bullets like some did during the same era.)

Not true at all. The tilting barrel of Mr. Browning's is properly called "locked breech". The slide and barrel recoil together for about 1/8" before the barrel drops down and separates from the slide. The recoiling mass is greatly increased this way.
By definition "blowback" relies on the weight of the slide and to a lesser degree the spring to keep the action closed until the bullet is gone and pressure drops.

I must confess limited familiarity with current Colt production but I've got several older guns or GI frames with no evidence of wear after many tens of thousands of rounds. If you've seen evidence of battering after a few thousand rounds of ball ammunition that's not good.

I agree, in terms of definitions, technically I was all wet. However in both types, the slide weight and recoil springs are designed around the cartridge. In neither case does the designer want excessive slide speeds. Since equal and opposite forces still apply, and it is momemtum that is conserved, increasing the mass of the bullet should make a big impact in slide velocity. (Increasing pressure does too)

Quote:

I must confess limited familiarity with current Colt production but I've got several older guns or GI frames with no evidence of wear after many tens of thousands of rounds. If you've seen evidence of battering after a few thousand rounds of ball ammunition that's not good.

I learned to use shock buffs, but the frame still peened excessively. So I sent it off to Colt. They replaced the frame but did nothing to the slide and barrel. Now I am not a trained pistol smith, but to me, I thought I have some sort of mis alignment between the locking lugs, barrel link, and slide. The pistol was obviously unlocking too early in the pressure curve and the slide was moving too fast.

So I sent it off to Wilson Arms and had them install one of their barrels, and more work that added up to double the purchase price of the pistol. And it works wonderfully!

Right on. Slide velocity is a really big deal and so many of the things people do serve to screw up something that wasn't broke. When we insist on smaller/lighter there is always a price to pay.

I dislike +P loads vehemently and have shown that the increase in recoil far outweighs the relatively small increase invelocity with the sole exception of the .38 Special where the percentage gain in velocity is greater than the percentage increase in recoil. All the others have a greater increase in recoil than velocity.

Springs have a relatively small effect because the intial recoil impulse often exceeds their strength. Simply putting a heavier spring in a 1911 rarely solves problems and sometimes causes new ones. The worst example is putting a very heavy spring in which drives the slide shut so fast that it can actually crack the frame or slide stop pin.

My experience is almost entirely with pistols and while I have studied the math my conclusions are of a more practical nature. There is much ill informed debate about springs in 1911 pistols but building 100s of guns for both ball and wadcutter loads has never left me in doubt that a standard spring is all you need for either one as long as the gun is properly built.

One esoteric factor that is hard to measure is the intial recoil impulse and it has been suggested that this factor can cause the spring to at least partially collapse and have little or no moderating effect.

I have several 1911 types that have fired many tens of thousands of rounds with the original spring and never shown the need for replacement. Some of that surely goes out the window with hot or +P loads and even moreso when we look at mini or micro designs but springs are rarely a problem solving tool.